Total posts: 905
Posted in:
Today (outside of Jerusalem) is the holiday of Purim. We celebrate the events retold in the Scroll of Esther and the miraculous saving of the Jewish population of Persia/Medea from the machinations of our enemies.
Freedom from oppression and the concern that there are those who collude to destroy us are still current concerns so we remind ourselves that faith, combined with action is the path we must follow.
Wishing happiness and peace to all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
If you are asking what will happen, based on the statement of Isaiah,
"The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard lie down with the kid;"
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Someone did try to call Jews out for the same thing and I said that it was not the case. I was told that, despite my being Jewish and in a position to be informed about these things, I am wrong about my own beliefs. Go figure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I have posted in specifically atheist forums if I had a question about atheism. Occasionally I have seen threads in which there were mistakes about Judaism so I have (though rarely) posted corrections.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I'm sorry if that's what you take from what I have written but I appreciate your candor and your postion on this. Have a good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I understand your point and you're not wrong. I just don't feel mocked when someone points out the irrationality of the kind of faith I happen to espouse. I embrace that my position is irrational so when someone can create a parallel case for rhetorical purposes, in order to illustrate the perception of my belief system I sit back and enjoy. I also happen to feel that atheism is a fine approach to the world that is internally consistent and highly rational. It just isn't my system. https://rosends.blogspot.com/2012/02/godless-godlus.html
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Strangely enough, that statement about Roger is why I find atheism attractive and reasonable and admire many atheists.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Are you saying Orthodox are now sell-outs too?
I have never said that. I'm not even sure what it means. Also, you write "too" as if there is another group that are "sell-outs". To what group are you referring?
Why do you keep referring to me as a Jewish guide!? – I rather hope they ask an actual Orthodox rabbi instead.
Where did I use the word "guide"? You wrote, " I taught Jews before" and I said that I hope that if Jews have questions they seek out an actual orthodox rabbi (which I am) and not you because your "teaching" is based in arrogance and ignorance.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Feel free to have whatever opinion you want. I happen to be an actual, honest to goodness ordained orthodox rabbi. I teach in a Jewish high school. I have a liberal arts degree from college (and multiple graduate degrees). I teach rhetoric. I teach textual interpretation. I teach orthodox Jewish views. Your opinion really doesn't matter. If people want to know anything about Judaism, I hope they ask someone like me, who is an actual Jew, trained to discuss Judaism, and not someone like you who makes things up and guesses, hiding behind some arrogant sense of self.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
You have it backwards. Your wishful thinking & fantasies do not speak for the Jewish Tradition & the rabbis. I taught Jews before, & I know your kind -all whims. I know real rabbis & their positions. Spare us your fake news. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.
I'm an orthodox rabbi. I have smicha from a kollel in Boro Park, Brooklyn. I think I speak for Jewish law and tradition a bit more than you who "taught Jews." Oh yeah, I'm also a teacher with a number of degrees, training and experience. You definitely don't know Judaism and Jewish law better than I do. But do let your arrogance flag fly!
Created:
-->
@Yassine
I'm not sure what you think you have been through before and what threshold you think was established and met in some phantom definition of "insane" that you like to use. But if you knew Jewish law, then you would know that your statement is wrong. Insisting that I would do something because of your very limited understanding of what being a Jew at any time really means just shows off that ignorance. Feel free to speak for others because you arrogantly think you know other cultures and cultural rules better than members of that culture, if that floats your boat.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Wow, you're magic. Now tell me how many fingers I'm holding up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
The definitions came from two texts that are linked to through the sefaria website.
For the definition, go to the site, go to the resources/dictionaries and look up שָׂנֵא by copying it from here and putting it in the search box on the top right. Then, select "reference" and pull down the menu and select the Jastrow and Klein (and "exact matches")
For Klein https://www.sefaria.org/Klein_Dictionary%2C_שׂנא?ven=Carta_Jerusalem%3B_1st_edition,_1987&lang=en
You will see dictionary entries (plus entries for other words that share a spelling but not pronunciation or meaning). The Open Scriptures on Github can't be accessed separately on sefaria but if you go to the Malachi verse
and then scroll down on the right side to "dictionaries" and click, and then search in dictionaries for שָׂנֵא you will see it come up.
The question in the linked argument is whether one can take the use of the root as it applies (in Gen 29:31) to Leah (as opposed to the sentiment Jacob shows towards Rachel). This is a difficult parallel to make (though if you go to the commentary of the Or Hachaim https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.29.31?lang=bi&with=Or%20HaChaim&lang2=en you will see that he does make the link, but that it reinforces "hate").
The Genesis verse uses the word in the passive (was hated) and indicates that it was a sense that God got, not that Jacob explicitly had. Reducing it to preference is not warranted by the text.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I read through your post and just wanted to add some info on the two references to Hebrew that you make. The first is on the use of the Hebrew word "sh'ol." What you say is effectively true, that the only mention of a negative "afterlife" is the references to sh'ol, which is understood to mean "the grave". I think that there are more interesting, deeper interpretations based on the root of the word, but it simply means, as you said, in the ground (death and burial) and not some sort of fire/brimstone thing.
The second word is a bit of a tougher sell. I am assuming, though, that you are referring to Malachi 1:3. The Hebrew word there is "saneiti" from the sin-nun-aleph root. Here is one dictionary's explanation
שָׂנֵא (v) heb
- to hate, be hateful
- (Qal) to hate
- of man
- of God
- hater, one hating, enemy (participle) (subst)
- of man
- (Niphal) to be hated
- (Piel) hater (participle)
- of persons, nations, God, wisdom
Klein's Etymological dictionary of Hebrew has
שׂנא
- to hate.
- (— Qal)
- he hated.
- he hated.
- (— Niph.)
- was hated.
- was hated.
- (— Hiph.)
- he caused to be hated, made hateful.
- he caused to be hated, made hateful.
- (— Hoph.)
- was made hateful.
- was made hateful.
- (— Pi.)
- he hated violently (in the Bible occurring only Ps. 139:21).
- he hated violently (in the Bible occurring only Ps. 139:21).
- (— Hith.)
- he became hateful.
- he became hateful.
- to hate.
[BAram. שְׂנָא, JAram. שְׂנָא, סְנָא, Syr. and New Syr. סְנָא (= he hated), Aram. סָנְאָה, Syr. סָנָאא (= hater), Samaritan part. סנ(א), Mand. part. סאנא (= hating), Arab. shani‘a (= he hated), OSArab. שׁנא (= to hate).]Derivatives: שׂוֹנֵא, שָׂנוּא, שָׂנְאוּי, שָׂנוּי, שָׂנִיא, שִׂנְאָה, הַשְׂנָאָה, מְשַׂנֵּא.
So I'm not sure if the "preferred" language which you invoke is the best suited for this word. If you are talking about a different verse, my apologies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I'm just answering your questions. I have already said what I intended to say. You just keep asking about it. If you don't want to keep going in circles, stop running around.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Is you ok? I'm not interested in rants. Do you have something tangible to say or discuss?
Yes, I is. I haven't ranted, just answered your questions. Why are you asking me if I have something tangible to say? I was the one who said something. You are the one asking questions.
Are you playing riddles? I expected nothing less.
I don't know how to "play riddles". Also, I'm not sure how you could develop any expectation. I commented on something you said and yet you seem to want to talk about all sorts of other things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
So, do you or do you support flying rockets into babies?
Why does that matter? The subject here (though it should be religion) is that you have presented how YOU feel. Do you have a problem with someone pointing out that your statement is useful in understanding who YOU are?
Is this how you talk to everyone? Say what you mean, mean what you say. & what is my position?
By "this" do you mean "with the right words to convey the right meaning"? If so, then yes, that's how I talk to everyone. I have said what I mean. Have you? If so, then you know your position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Are you trying to say you support flying rockets into babies?
Nope. I'm saying that by seeing how you word the issue and where you think it appropriate to mention it, I can understand your thinking and extrapolate from that to help me understand your thinking in other areas.
That's a very wordy sentence. What is my underlying position then?
It isn't any more wordy than meaning requires it to be. Are you saying you don't know your own position? You are the one who made the statement. Were you saying something other than what your words mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I don't know what jidf is. I have no problem with what you said. It was enlightening and revealing and I appreciate it as a wonderful piece of shorthand to help me understand your underlying position.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
I mean that Jews have always put man above God, in recognition that all the notions about any god are man made.
I'm still not sure what this means. Judaism (at least Orthodoxy) puts God above everything. While any conceptions of God have to be limited by the human mind and therefore, to some degree, inaccurate, this doesn't change the relative position of God as above all.
Belief in Jewry has always been led by those who preach the oral traditions.
Unless one is a Karaite (or an ancient Sadduccee) the Oral Tradition is an integral part of Jewish belief, but it is sourced from God at Sinai.
I do not think any Jew has ever been fool enough as to believe in talking serpents and donkeys.
Then your knowledge of Judaism has been limited.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
The historic parts in their holy books are not explanations.
This was an issue of the translation of a talmudic statement and the intent by the speaker of that statement.
Regardless, the author is not here to explain his choice of words and neither is the scholar who quoted it.
But the choice of a word creates an impression. If the choice is inaccurate, the impression created is flawed.
The Jews put man above god and that is good enough for Gnostic Christians and the other more intelligent religions that do the same.
I'm not sure what you mean by this -- it certainly isn't a useful reduction of any religious view, especially one as complex as the Jewish approach to the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
They just fly rockets into babies
Thank you for showing your true colors. Have a nice day.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
The section you put in bold is not accurately translated. The Hebrew word which you have as "commentary" is better read as "explanation." The word "commentary" might be seen as reducing the material to a secondary status when, in fact, it simply means that the rest of the material is what you would need to study to understand the first part of his instruction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Doesn't necessarily make the ideology any more reasonable though.
Agreed, nor should it. I don't think that behaviors are designed to convince people that the ideologies behind them are reasonable.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
If one viewed the consequence of the fall in the garden as a punishment, then one might see that fating every human to be born with a stain of a sin committed by an ancestor is kin punishment. If one does NOT see the consequence as a punishment, but as something else, then it is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Thank you for what you wrote.
Just to clarify -- for many Jews, physical movement, known as shuckeling from the Yiddish for "shake" (similar to shaking or quaking in other religious usages) is a way to express or create focus when praying or even learning (and for some, even learning secular material). Some pray standing stock still and other move their bodies in various directions. Certain prayer requires standing in one spot, so one cannot walk or wander and swaying is an unintentional side effect of the need to move and the rule forbidding moving the legs. It is not a requirement of prayer, nor anything codified nor institutionalized. It is a personal and often automatic reaction to the spiritual sense. It is something that the same Jews would do WHEREVER they were praying, be it alone in a living room at home, or in a group in a synagogue or on an airplane or anywhere else.
Being at the wall is something else. It is a locus of spiritual meaning to Jews so to be close to it is meaningful Some rest heads or hands on it to make that nearness very real and tangible. Others kiss it the way they would kiss a torah scroll or a religious book, to show affection for a holy object. When I am there, it does allow me to feel a recharging -- a being (literally) in "touch" with my identity so I do rest my head an hands against it (also an expression of realization of loss as the wall signifies a lost temple as well, so there is some sense of grief). One can look online and find pictures of people resting their heads, touching or kissing the Vietnam Memorial in Washington. It isn't exactly the same (as the expressions at the Western Wall are driven by a spiritual, less "real" to the outsider, feeling than a Vietnam Memorial) but it is parallel.
Even though some people also pray while touching their heads to the wall, the two behaviors, movement during prayer and the wish to have physical closeness to the "divine spirit" that rests on the wall are unrelated, so any conflating of them into "butting heads against the wall" is silly and misinformed.
One can watch people at the wall here https://thekotel.org/en/western-wall/western-wall-cameras/ and https://thekotel.org/en/western-wall/cameras-prayer-plaza/ to see the variety of ways people express themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What "sense" am I missing? How much time have you spent at the Western Wall and what action do you think you are exaggerating that manifests itself as "head butting walls"?
Alternatively, if you could explain in what sense you are using the word "exaggerate" to contextualize your characterization of whatever behavior you witnessed, that would be helpful. The only definition I can intuit that would make sense would not underscore what I thought the point of your initial statement was, so I would appreciate the clarification.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Is religion simply a crutch for the lost and lonely wishing for a sense of belonging?
While I think that one thing religion can give some people is a sense of belonging, that is only one function and it might be a function that is only operative and important to a limited selection of people.
Does it give them strength that they believe they otherwise wouldn't have?
I have never seen this to be the case. I guess if you had a more precise question (or a broader one) I could address this more fully.
Is it a social support structure that they cannot find elsewhere?
There are supportive aspects to a religious in-group that other in-groups do not provide. But there is a similarly unique set of social-structure attributes that find themselves expressed in other in-groups and which are absent from a religious connection.
Why is religion so important to the believer ?
That will depend on the individual believer. In some, religious identity (as deriving from ancestry and heritage and informing culture and daily structure) is a central part of the overall self-concept. For others, the section of communal connection is a relatively small but vital part of the notion of self. And there are, no doubt, loads of other possibilities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Oh. Having just spent some time at the wall I see your exaggeration as not making any sense but w/e.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Oh, that's a figure of speech unrelated to anything religious. It is being used here to describe the futility of advancing a non-winning position vis-a-vis secular law. The religious position must be championed even when it will get no where.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Just to supplement what I wrote and show you that there are varying opinions, I just saw this question and answer come up and they might be informative.
Created:
Posted in:
@zedvictor4
I think I understand your comment about genital mutilation but I wonder what you mean by "Head butting walls".
If you could explain it, I would appreciate that. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Much of the answer to that would be tied up in the debate about whether the resurrection is before or after the next world. The way I understand it, the soul is eternal, but being in the divine presence is only for those souls who (eventually) deserve it. So I would assume that the soul of one who is unredeemably evil simply has to be constantly reminded of not being in God's presence. I guess that the best way to connect this is to the story of the dybbuk. That is the soul of, for example, a suicide who will be tormented and followed by heavenly forces for eternity (unless it escapes into a human body...weird stuff) -- read here for more
but it is not even a clear concept so just take it as a piece of a complicated puzzle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Those are fair questions and I grant that I haven't the faintest idea other than to fall back on some unsatisfying "angels" or "heavenly forces."
Imagine if you (generic) had to watch a movie of your life and recognize each of the moments and actions that were contrary to divine will and fess up to that. You would be ashamed but would have to "grow" in the sense of understanding your actual relationship to the full divine presence.
In terms of the groupings, we assume that there are very few who are truly evil (speaking about from among the Jewish people -- I'm not deciding if Hitler's soul is educatable or not). The 11th chapter of the talmudic tractate Sanhedrin goes through categories and individuals who have forfeited some aspect of the next world. I will quote a summary of the Mishna (the heart of the oral law) but there is substantial explanation and explication regarding this so please don't jump to any conclusions about meaning from just reading the isolated version I am pasting:
The following have no share in the world to come:
1.One who says that the Torah does not teach that there is a world to come, or that Hash-m did not give the Torah, or an Apikorus;
2.R. Akiva says, even one who reads foreign books (this will be explained).
3.One who whispers "Kol ha'Machalah... Lo Asim Alecha Ki Ani Hash-m Rofe'echa" over a wound.
4.Aba Sha'ul says, even one who pronounces Hash-m's name like it is written.
(c)Three kings and four commoners have no share in the world to come:
1.The kings are Yarav'am, Achav and Menasheh.
2.R. Yehudah says, Menasheh has a share in the world to come, for it says "va'Yispalel Elav... va'Yishma Techinaso va'Yashivehu Yerushalayim l'Malchuso"!
3.Chachamim: He returned him to his kingship, but He did not return him to life in the world to come.
4.The commoners are Bil'am, Do'eg, Achitofel and Gechazi.
The bottom line is that it is subject to books and books' worth of discussion and argument. As to what non-Jews don't ever qualify (and yes, not all the people listed above are Jews) that is also the subject of discussion -- are those 4 listed archetypes or is it a closed list.
As to the other question you asked about
Why would someone want to be Jewish if they weren't focused on the afterlife? I thought the whole point of being in a religion was so that you got a chance at some afterlife.
that is easier to answer -- Judaism sees all people as having the opportunity for an afterlife, not just Jews. As such, there should be no draw to convert to Judaism based on getting a chance at anything in particular.
Created:
Posted in:
The Jewish idea of the technical aspects of an afterlife is a matter of much discussion. Early biblical/textual sources give scant reference and even less explanation. Post biblical source flesh out a little more, explaining that there is a next world, judgment, resurrection of the dead in messianic days, and other stuff. But the details and structure are not universally agreed upon by Jewish authorities.
An over simplified version would include the following ideas:
after death, the immortal soul is judged. There are 3 basic categories -- fully good, fully evil and middling. Most of us are middling. There is a period of time after death when the soul goes through what can best be thought of as a period of re-education, of realization about responsibility for having committed sins. At this point, the soul is separated from the divine presence and that stinks. Re-education prepares the soul for a reconnection to the divine. That time period is up to a year, but we assume less.
People who are purely evil are separated from God eternally and those who are purely good connect to the divine presence imemdiately.
The idea of a resurrection, of an eternal (physical) life or like that, and where that fits in to this process and the arrival of a future messiah is where things get confusing.
a side note -- the next world, and any form of "eternal reward" is for those who are Jewish (as measured by their adherence to the canon of 613+ laws) and non-Jews who are measured against the obligation to follow the 7 Noachide laws.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The difference here I believe is that it leaves judgment (hell fire) to god. What the Christ of the Christians doesn't command is for his followers to go out into the world and convert everyone "until all religion is for Allah" by the sword as does the god of Muslims.
I understand this distinction and, yes, it is an important one, and the butchering that occurred over the years was one step removed from a direct edict to behead, but I'm just thinking about the underlying approach/attitude towards others outside the particular faith. Isn't each religion teaching that those who don't accept its theological paradigm are destined, by definition, to violent punishment? While in one, the purveyors are in this world, and in the other, in the next world, each looks at the "outsider" as unworthy on a grand scale.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Does Christianity teach an eternity in hell fire for not believing? Is that so different?
Created:
Posted in:
It is important to know (and this relates more directly to your question) that the Philistines understood a God character through the lens of their own theology. Gods to them were more like humans, with wants and desires and bodies, so they "paid off" a God thinking it was more powerful (superhuman) than their God, not that its nature was so different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
God had punished the five cities with a medical condition that struck the hidden part of the body -- it was painful and had no external cause (and affected everyone regardless of gender or age). The decision was to return the ark along with a payment, recompense for having taken it, an offering if you will.
The 2 shapes of gold offered symbolized the acknowledging that God was in power -- the hemorrhoids were an admission that the medical plague was from God and the mice symbolized the relative importance of the people - like an insignificant mouse compared to God's realized power.
Created:
Posted in:
The word transliterated as Sabachtani has a structure that mirrors a Hebrew or Aramaic structure, but I'm not sure of the root.
Some Hebrew options are
Azavtani (left me)
Zavachtani (sacrificed me)
Shachachtani (forgot me)
The Aramaic for Psalm 22:2 has
Sh'vaktani (left me)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
It isn't an assumption -- it is an object of faith. If you start with that, certain questions arise and others don't make sense to be asked. If you start with other views, you get to different questions. Any one starting point is just as liable to be questioned as any other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
that depends on the idea of the creator. If the creator is infinite, perfect and all those other extremes then nothing is new to the creaor and you get into that logical loop of "the being knows all can do everything, but can he create something that would be new to him?" (the intellectual equivalent of making a rock he cannot lift)
Created:
If we posit that God is unknowable, then aren't we claiming to know one thing about God?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Though I don't remind anyone of anything at every chance (for example, I have posted on this thread many times and have not reminded anyone of anything regarding my background in most situations so your blanket claim is wrong) when it is a relevant point I mention it.
As to your other claim that my status does not make me "correct," I never claimed it did. However it does mean I have the requisite knowledge to represent the codified teachings of a larger group and not simply state a personal belief.
Your statement that "I have insight into the text in question" does not answer what I asked.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I admit, I'm still relatively new to this site so I'm not sure of the formal rules about sticking to the topic in the title. For all I know, that's an unreasonable expectation so I shouldn't be pointing it out. I just understood this thread to be about a claim regarding Judaism and where within Jewish understanding can one find sources for resurrection as a theological position.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
You mean your particular brand of Judiasm.
Yes, this is very true. As I am an orthodox rabbi, I can really only speak about the ideas implicit within orthodox Judaism. If you have insight into another branch of Judaism, and can show that it, as a matter not of a singular person's interpretation, but of branch philosophy and stated dogma, teaches that these verses are read to point to resurrection, I would love to hear about it. Thanks in advance.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I made no comment about what Judiasm is. I showed what scripture clearly says. The doctrine of resurrection is in the text, regardless of what some Jews say.
You are commenting in a thread specifically about the Jewish system and showing what you believe the scripture says. Those are two different positions.
That you view this as a "problem" is of no concern to me.
If you don't see straying from the named topic of a thread as a problem then so be it. I try to stick with what the topic is supposed to be. It would seem silly to go into a thread about soccer and discuss baseball but if you see that as what is appropriate on this board then I'm glad to understand that now.
They are translations, not interpolations.
No, as your text inserted words that are not in the original. That makes them interpolations -- insertions, and not translations.
your constant excuse of "you aren't a Jew" has worn thin. Both Jews and non use the same modes of communication. The idea of a resurrection is expressed several times in the OT by Jewish characters in the OT.
"Worn thin" to whom? To you? So what? Your speaking outside the scope of this thread has worn thin to me but that doesn't bother you. Go figure. And my concern isn't that you aren't a Jew. I don't know that you aren't a Jew. All I know is that you are imputing to Judaism a position on particular texts which is not in line with Judaism's view of those texts. That resurrection is explicitly mentioned in Judaic texts is no innovation. It is just that Judaism doesn't understand this particular text as being one that invokes the idea of resurrection.
I too am not interested in anyone else's understanding of any version of texts as seen through the lens of their beliefs. My focus remains on reality.
Great. Then your statement of your particular interpretation of the texts on a thread about the Jewish system is irrelevant to anyone who wants to stay focused on the titular topic, but you see that as a reasonable approach to discussion. I do not. Best of luck to you pursuing your personal area of interest.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Untrue. How would you know this? It is clear from the text that Job's friends did not share any already existing "construct" of religion as they disagreed fundamentally on doctrine.
No, true, because it is a belief from within the Jewish system about the texts of what are called K'tuvim, "Writings." There are different functions for the three sections of the Jewish written bible and each one has a purpose and limitations. Again, your understanding of what is going on in Job is fine, but it stands outside of the Jewish system. Why would you continue to be so arrogant as to insist that your beliefs about Judaism are actually what Judaism is?
I'm saying nothing about Judiasm, but the idea IS in the text, whether Judiasm follows the text is their business, but their particular opinion of Judaism doesn't change scripture at all.
But you are and that's the problem. The purpose of this thread was a claim that resurrection could be found in the Jewish system as evidenced by particular texts. When you present this text within this thread, you are claiming that this is proof that something is true (as per the title) "within the Jewish system." The idea may be in how YOU read the text but it isn't in how Judaism reads it. And, by the way, words like "death" and "worms" and "destroy" are not in the verse you cite. They are interpolations added by the translation you chose. I can go through the Hebrew if you would like so you can see precisely what he words say and you will see how the translation you presented added in words that are not there. Your vision of the meaning here has nothing to do with the Jewish system.
If you want to start a whole new thread called "where can one find resurrection in the Old Testament" then fine, do that and put in whatever you find and it can be discussed. It can be discussed as a cause or effect of a theologically driven agenda, it can be discussed as it relates to the specific words (and what can also be discussed is whether the specific word choices drive meaning, or are driven by a necessity of meaning), and it can be discussed in any way you want. I'll applaud it and celebrate it. I won't participate, of course, because my focus is on Judaism, not anyone else's understanding of some English version of texts as seen through the lens of other beliefs.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
You have a mistaken understanding. The section of texts called "Writings" (in which Job is found) were written within an already extant construct of religion so their meaning has to fall in line with that idea. Understanding is informed by the structure -- the writings do not create the structure. Now, while resurrection (as I have said) might be found within Judaism as a structure, it is not found in those lines unless one reads in a theological interpretation which is not part of Judaism.
Your interpretation of 19:27 as reincarnation requires you to find the idea of death in the previous verses but it isn't there. The Jewish tradition discusses these verses not in regards to resurrection but justice after suffering. If you find resurrection in this then that's fine for you. If you find, in that realization that you must see Judaism as in error, then good for you (your particular opinion of Judaism doesn't change Judaism at all). But to impute the idea of resurrection to Judaism in these verses, through your non-Jewish understanding is incorrect.
Created: